Why did Jesus Leave?

[devolved]

You perceiving things as conjecture doesn't make them conjecture...

Of course not, but conjecture is a third party perception... hence why more evidence than "personal witness" is required. Otherwise we can claim just about anything.

Just look up David Icke. He too claims to have received information from "beyond" which one of you two do I believe and why?

 

[amariselle]

I never suggested that ridicule is the only mode of interaction one should pursue with those one disagrees with. I didn't even say that it should be the dominant mode. My position is much simpler: ridicule is a form of criticism that can, under certain conditions, be effective in civil discourse.

Ridicule, which is mockery, contempt, taunts, etc. is NOT "civil".

Civil: "Courteous and polite."

Synonyms: "well mannered, polite, courteous, genial, pleasant

Ridicule can be offensive, but any form of criticism might be seen as offensive by some. In conversations about religion in particular, I've found that some people are very easily offended, no matter how polite you try to be.[/b]

Of course people may possibly be offended. Even constructive criticism does not rule out this possibility. The issue here is with intent. Those who ridicule intend to offend, or, at the very least, they don't care if they do offend. Constructive criticism on the other hand, is used by those in the hope that lasting and positive change will come about as a result. Those who use constructive criticism are trying to help and instruct others.

I never disagreed on this point. Criticism can take on many forms, and ridicule is one of them. You can criticise without ridiculing, but you cannot ridicule without criticising.

As I said, in my opinion, ridicule is not helpful, nor is it "civil." You may be criticizing people or their beliefs, but you're not benefitting anyone.

There are instances of ridicule in the Bible, as I've shown you. Jesus derided the Pharisees, calling them "vipers" (Matthew 23:33) and likening them to whitewashed tombs (Matthew 23:27). Was such behaviour "despicable"?

Jesus is God, as such His judgement is entirely righteous. As God, He knows all things and as such He knows when such things are merited. People do not.

Also, Jesus didn't just go out and call the religious leaders names, He explained why what they were doing merited such judgement.

 

[ScottA]

Of course not, but conjecture is a third party perception... hence why more evidence than "personal witness" is required. Otherwise we can claim just about anything.

Just look up David Icke. He too claims to have received information from "beyond" which one of you two do I believe and why?

And that is why the better term (the correct term) is "news." Which begs the question - if it's just news that we have to offer, are you interested, or not?

 

[Dan Bert]

This is what is given in Scriptures....NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. The true order of it ...is Vision, Hope, belief and works. How it gets done is unseen. Faith is the power that gets things done. It remains unseen because our physical eyes do not see how it is done. Also, belief in principles that are not correct will not yield results. With God and correct doctrines nothing is impossible for men to achieve, even to the bringing down heaven on the earth. However men have chosen unbelief and the raising hell on the earth. So things will continue to worsen in this world until the fullness of the tribulations is upon us.

bert10

So... if faith is believing without seeing, how is that any powerful?

It seems like a Jedy mind trick of sorts "you don't beed to see anything and you will believe what I say"

Why would faith be better or more reliable? It simply doesn't seem like it is. For example, you don't just believe any religoius claim out the, right? You haven't really answered this question as to why you make exceptions to everything else if faith is clearly better way to go.

 

[devolved]

And that is why the better term (the correct term) is "news." Which begs the question - if it's just news that we have to offer, are you interested, or not?

Scott. News imply new and it implies facts.

You don't disclose any facts, neither your claims are new.

So, what is "news" about it?

 

[Deidre32]

Silly? You said that "many people follow false gods." Is it "silly" of me to ask you how you know this? I also asked whether Jesus was the same God as the God of the Old Testament. But this "silly" question received no response. To be fair, you have responded to my question about people's religious motivations (above), but that isn't all I asked, and though you've accused me of misrepresenting you (even going so far as to allude to "flat out lying"), that claim remains unfounded.

What do you care so much about what I think? lol

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What do you care so much about what I think? lol

This is the Discussion and Debate section, is it not? Why post here if you don't intend to engage in discussion? Is this the "true dialogue" you mentioned earlier?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ridicule, which is mockery, contempt, taunts, etc. is NOT "civil".

Civil: "Courteous and polite."

Synonyms: "well mannered, polite, courteous, genial, pleasant

I'm the using "civil discourse" broadly to refer to conversations in which individuals are trying to further understanding about a particular matter or to argue a case. The opinion section of your newspaper is a good example. It's not free of ridicule either.

Of course people may possibly be offended. Even constructive criticism does not rule out this possibility. The issue here is with intent. Those who ridicule intend to offend, or, at the very least, they don't care if they do offend. Constructive criticism on the other hand, is used by those in the hope that lasting and positive change will come about as a result. Those who use constructive criticism are trying to help and instruct others.

I disagree. Those who ridicule may want to offend, but that need not be the only goal, or even the main goal. Pointing out the ridiculousness of someone's position through ridicule can also be instructive, as the tweet I linked to earlier shows.

As I said, in my opinion, ridicule is not helpful, nor is it "civil." You may be criticizing people or their beliefs, but you're not benefitting anyone.

I disagree. Ridicule can be beneficial in ways that merely saying "that's ridiculous" isn't. You alluded to intent, which I agree is important. But you seem to think that the only intent of ridicule is to offend, rather than to make a larger point.

Jesus is God, as such His judgement is entirely righteous. As God, He knows all things and as such He knows when such things are merited. People do not.

Also, Jesus didn't just go out and call the religious leaders names, He explained why what they were doing merited such judgement.

This is an obvious double-standard. You said that ridicule is "despicable," implying that one should never engage in such behaviour. Yet when shown that Jesus used ridicule, you insist that the subjects of his ridicule were deserving of it. Is the KKK not deserving of ridicule in your view?

 

[amariselle]

I'm the using "civil discourse" broadly to refer to conversations in which individuals are trying to further understanding about a particular matter or to argue a case. The opinion section of your newspaper is a good example. It's not free of ridicule either.

I disagree. Those who ridicule may want to offend, but that need not be the only goal, or even the main goal. Pointing out the ridiculousness of someone's position through ridicule can also be instructive, as the tweet I linked to earlier shows.

I disagree. Ridicule can be beneficial in ways that merely saying "that's ridiculous" isn't. You alluded to intent, which I agree is important. But you seem to think that the only intent of ridicule is to offend, rather than to make a larger point.

Well, we've obviously hit an impasse. We will just have to agree to disagree.

This is an obvious double-standard. You said that ridicule is "despicable," implying that one should never engage in such behaviour. Yet when shown that Jesus used ridicule, you insist that the subjects of his ridicule were deserving of it. Is the KKK not deserving of ridicule in your view?

There is no "double standard."

Jesus wasn't ridiculing anyone, He was not mocking, making fun of or taunting anyone. As I said He explained why His righteous judgement was merited in the case of the religious leaders, He did not just go out to insult them and call them names.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is no "double standard."

Jesus wasn't ridiculing anyone, He was not mocking, making fun of or taunting anyone. As I said He explained why His righteous judgement was merited in the case of the religious leaders, He did not just go out to insult them and call them names.

He called them "vipers," and likened them to whitewashed tombs. That is indeed ridicule. Whether it was justified or not is not germane to the question of whether he was in fact ridiculing them. Indeed he was.

Interestingly, you seem to be suggesting that ridicule is permissible if the subjects of the ridicule are deserving of it. In your view, is the KKK a deserving recipient?

 

[amariselle]

He called them "vipers," and likened them to whitewashed tombs. That is indeed ridicule. Whether it was justified or not is not germane to the question of whether he was in fact ridiculing them. Indeed he was.

Interestingly, you seem to be suggesting that ridicule is permissible if the subjects of the ridicule are deserving of it. In your view, is the KKK a deserving recipient?

No, I am saying Jesus is God and His judgement is just. His righteous judgement is NOT ridicule or mockery.

I've already addressed your questions regarding the KKK, and I don't need to repeat myself.

 

[ScottA]

Scott. News imply new and it implies facts.

You don't disclose any facts, neither your claims are new.

So, what is "news" about it?

Fact is...it's news to you.

But, because of the nature of it, you seem to be having trouble with the whole idea - apparently. For some reason you have not grasped that it is not of this world, and the facts that you imply are not to be found here. Nonetheless, they are available, but you are going to have to come around to the whole "out of this world" idea, to even consider it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I am saying Jesus is God and His judgement is just. His righteous judgement is NOT ridicule or mockery.

I've already addressed your questions regarding the KKK, and I don't need to repeat myself.

As I said, this is a double-standard. When Jesus ridicules, it's not ridicule anymore, according to you. To say that it is would be to admit that Jesus did something you consider "despicable." Yet when others use ridicule, even against those clearly deserving of it, you immediately accuse them of doing something despicable. If it wasn't despicable for Jesus to use ridicule against those who merited it, then why would it be despicable for anyone else?

 

[amariselle]

As I said, this is a double-standard. When Jesus ridicules, it's not ridicule anymore, according to you. To say that it is would be to admit that Jesus did something you consider "despicable." Yet when others use ridicule, even against those clearly deserving of it, you immediately accuse them of doing something despicable. If it wasn't despicable for Jesus to use ridicule against those who merited it, then why would it be despicable for anyone else?

Once again, and this is the last time I'll say it, Jesus DID NOT ridicule anyone. He is God, and His judgement is righteous and just. He did NOT just go out and call the religious leaders names.

Now, we can agree to disagree on this also. I am done arguing in circles.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Once again, and this is the last time I'll say it, Jesus DID NOT ridicule anyone. He is God, and His judgement is righteous and just. He did NOT just go out and call the religious leaders names.

Now, we can agree to disagree on this also. I am done arguing in circles.

The people in the photo above didn't just go out and call the KKK names either. Yet their behaviour is "despicable" and Jesus' isn't? This is manifestly a double-standard. I've shown you that Jesus used ridicule. He could have just pointed out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees without likening them to vipers or whitewashed tombs, which is what you would have everyone else do. But he didn't. He opted for a metaphor that, in addition to making his point, would actually offend the subjects he was talking about. He used ridicule. Whether his judgment was "righteous and just" is irrelevant. But if you think that it does matter, then I'll submit to you that the judgment of those in the photo was likewise righteous and just. In that case, if we follow your reasoning, it ceases to be ridicule; it ceases to be despicable.

 

[amariselle]

The people in the photo above didn't just go out and call the KKK names either. Yet their behaviour is "despicable" and Jesus' isn't? This is manifestly a double-standard. I've shown you that Jesus used ridicule. He could have just pointed out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees without likening them to vipers or whitewashed tombs, which is what you would have everyone else do. But he didn't. He opted for a metaphor that, in addition to making his point, would actually offend the subjects he was talking about. He used ridicule. Whether his judgment was "righteous and just" is irrelevant. But if you think that it does matter, then I'll submit to you that the judgment of those in the photo was likewise righteous and just. In that case, if we follow your reasoning, it ceases to be ridicule; it ceases to be despicable.

Those people, and the rest of us as well, are not God. Jesus is God.

Agreeing to disagree on all of this. And now I am truly moving on.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

He called them "vipers," and likened them to whitewashed tombs. That is indeed ridicule. Whether it was justified or not is not germane to the question of whether he was in fact ridiculing them. Indeed he was.

Interestingly, you seem to be suggesting that ridicule is permissible if the subjects of the ridicule are deserving of it. In your view, is the KKK a deserving recipient?

If someone calls you what you are, is that ridicule ?
Jesus never lied.
Jesus always spoke what the Father in heaven told Him to speak.
He called them exactly what they were,
and told them exactly who their Father was,
and they sure did not like it,
but nothing indicates that they themselves thought it was ridicule. (they knew Jesus was right, and they were provoked / convicted/ guilty in their heart and in their minds, but they adamantly refused to change their ways from totally evil and wicked to do what is right)

Jesus would speak plainly to anyone, whom the Father directed Him,
and
the KKK and democrats or republicans are no exception,
nor are stock brokers, bankers, lawyers, or real estate investors/ house flippers/ landlords who are slumlords and so forth - Jesus did not show respect for anything like that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Those people, and the rest of us as well, are not God. Jesus is God.

Agreeing to disagree on all of this. And now I am truly moving on.

So the only way for someone to make a judgment that is righteous and just is for them to be a god? That's ridiculous! And it undermines everything you've said thus far. You are not a god either, so how can you judge the behaviour of those engaging in ridicule as "despicable"? How can you say that it is wrong to ridicule, no matter what the circumstances?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

He called them "vipers," and likened them to whitewashed tombs. That is indeed ridicule.

Before you die and are buried,
wouldn't you want a chance ? Jesus was / is the most honest Voice you would ever hear, if you could hear. The scribes and pharisees were vipers and whitewashed tombs, just like Jesus told them. There's no doubt there.
Same thing happens today, if you could hear ....
Why do you call it ridicule ? Not even the scribes nor the pharisees called it ridicule.

If you called a nazi-killer-of-children a killer, do you think the nazi would say that that is ridicule??
I don't think they ever thought so .
They knew they were child-killers.
They never thought it was ridicule to be called child-killers, did they ?

 

[amariselle]

So the only way for someone to make a judgment that is righteous and just is for them to be a god? That's ridiculous! And it undermines everything you've said thus far. You are not a god either, so how can you judge the behaviour of those engaging in ridicule as "despicable"? How can you say that it is wrong to ridicule, no matter what the circumstances?

God alone is righteous.

It is wrong to ridicule because mockery and condescension don't help anyone. And also, I recognize that such is not how I'm to behave if I truly am a Christian and follow the teachings and commands of Christ.